Is Having Children a Right?

I don't really mind that it's "playing with nature", I just am bothered that it's not equally available to all people.

I still think, Georgia, that you are under the impression that it involves more than it really does.

I realize that things like surgery, organ transplant, or any kind of medical treatment is playing with nature...hell, even popping an aspirin for a headache could be seen as such. But most medical procedures are performed to aid that person and that person is the one who would need to suffer any repercussions that may follow that procedure. But when you're screwing with nature to the point where you're dragging another life into the mix, then it becomes selfish because you are pretty much experimenting with an innocent (potential) person. I have no problem with taking nature into your own hands to some extent, but when necessity stops and desire begins - that's where the line should be drawn.

Also, unlike things like organ transplants and invasive surgeries, IVF is not required to sustain a person's life (the women with baby rabies might think IVF is essential to their existence, but it's actually not - these women are just cuckoo). I sort of view IVF in the same category as cosmetic surgery - it's not necessary, but people may pursue it to make themselves happier. This is why I think IVF should not be covered by insurance, just like cosmetic surgery.

BUT IVF is really more expensive than children. I mean, think about it this way- the average middle class family has the money to have children and be just fine. The average middle class family can't afford to pay for IVF- because it cost thousands of dollars and isn't often covered by insurance, like the prenatal care and birth will be.

The average cost of raising one child from infancy to the age of 18 is somewhere around $297,000; IVF costs upwards of $10,000 (correct me if I'm wrong, but a hospital birth costs about that much). Also, there are loans made specifically for people who want to go about doing IVF but who cannot afford it. I concur that if the person or couple cannot afford the procedure, then they should not be having children in the first place.



Perhaps, but the difference between IVF and something like an organ transplant or chemo/radiation therapy is the latters are needed to sustain the person's life or quality of life. IVF is not necessary to keep someone alive or improve that person's quality of life.

Poor people should stop having children they can't afford. It sickens me much more when teens have babies and go on welfare, than when a wealthy couple has a child by IVF.

Then the poor teen gets the child taken away from them, and given to grandparents to raise, but the state pays the grandparents the foster money.

Sick. sick. sick.

I'm not trying to talk about just poor people here, I'm talking about (what I consider to be) middle class families.

What other things should wealthy people not be allowed to have because middle class people cannot afford them?

Seriously, I do not get it. IVF just brings children to couples who cannot have them any other way. Middle class people can adopt and get children if they cannot afford IVF. Everyone can get a child.

Well I agree with you on that point.

Still, people that cannot afford ivf can adopt.

Well, to each his or her own. I never wanted to have to struggle financially when I had a child, so I planned accordingly. Not everyone is the same.